Partial Component Exchange of a Non-infected Inflatable Penile Prosthesis is Associated with a Higher Complication Rate

Published:January 16, 2023DOI:



      To describe the infectious and non-infectious complications in men undergoing IPP revision with partial and complete component exchange for mechanical malfunction.


      We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent IPP revision. Men undergoing procedures for implant infection were excluded. Patients were divided into those who had complete exchange of the entire device or partial exchange of only one or two components. Infectious and non-infectious complications were compared between groups.


      368 men had complete exchange of the entire device and 85 had partial component exchange. Men undergoing partial exchange had a significantly higher infection rate (7.1% vs 2.2%, p=0.031). The partial exchange group also was more likely to receive antifungals (51.8 vs 16.6%, p<0.001), have a modified salvage washout (77.4 vs 60.2%, p=0.004), and less likely to receive vancomycin and gentamicin (63.5 vs 83.7%, p<0.001). Time to revision was significantly shorter in the partial exchange group (44.9 vs 168.2 months, p<0.001).  Mean follow-up was slightly longer in the complete exchange group (18.3 vs 13.0 months). In multivariable analysis, partial exchange surgery, vancomycin and gentamicin prophylaxis, modified salvage washout, and antifungal prophylaxis were no longer associated with postoperative infections. The partial exchange group had greater rates of non-infectious complications (21.2% vs 9.5%, p=0.005) such as pump malfunction and tubing breakage.


      Patients undergoing partial component revision had more infectious and non-infectious complications. These findings suggest that partial component exchange increases complications in men undergoing IPP revision.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Rajpurkar A
        • Dhabuwala CB.
        Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice.
        J Urol. 2003; 170: 159-163
        • Çayan S
        • Aşcı R
        • Efesoy O
        • Bolat MS
        • Akbay E
        • Yaman Ö.
        Comparison of Long-Term Results and Couples’ Satisfaction with Penile Implant Types and Brands: Lessons Learned From 883 Patients With Erectile Dysfunction Who Underwent Penile Prosthesis Implantation.
        J Sex Med. 2019; 16: 1092-1099
        • Wintner A
        • Lentz AC.
        Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Considerations in Revision Surgery.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2019; 20: 1-7
        • Chierigo F
        • Capogrosso P
        • Dehò F
        • et al.
        Long-Term Follow-Up After Penile Prosthesis Implantation—Survival and Quality of Life Outcomes.
        J Sex Med. 2019; 16: 1827-1833
        • Linder BJ
        • Viers BR
        • Ziegelmann MJ
        • Rivera ME
        • Rangel LJ
        • Elliott DS.
        Artificial urinary sphincter mechanical failures - Is it better to replace the entire device or just the malfunctioning component?.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1523-1528
      1. Campbell SP, Kim CJ, Allkanjari A, et al. Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange : a single-center retrospective cohort study. 2022;(September). doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00616-x

        • Maillet F
        • Buzelin JM
        • Bouchot O
        • Karam G.
        Management of artificial urinary sphincter dysfunction.
        Eur Urol. 2004; 46: 241-246
        • Montague DK
        • Angermeier KW.
        Artificial urinary sphincter troubleshooting.
        Urology. 2001; 58: 779-782
        • Henry GD
        • Donatucci CF
        • Conners W
        • et al.
        An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: A multicenter study.
        J Sex Med. 2012; 9: 309-315
        • Dawn LE
        • Henry GD
        • Tan GK
        • Wilson SK.
        Biofilm and Infectious Agents Present at the Time of Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Times Are a Changing.
        Sex Med Rev. 2017; 5: 236-243
        • Licht MR
        • Montague DK
        • Angermeier KW
        • Lakin MM.
        Cultures From Genitourinary Prostheses at Reoperation: Questioning the Role of Staphylococcus Epidermidis in Periprosthetic Infection.
        J Urol. 1995; 154: 387-390
        • Abouassaly R
        • Angermeier KW
        • Montague DK.
        Risk of Infection With an Antibiotic Coated Penile Prosthesis at Device Replacement for Mechanical Failure.
        J Urol. 2006; 176: 2471-2473
        • Kava BR
        • Kanagarajah P
        • Ayyathurai R.
        Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: A single-surgeon Series.
        J Sex Med. 2011; 8: 1540-1546
        • Henry GD
        • Wilson SK
        • Delk JR
        • et al.
        Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: A multicenter study.
        J Urol. 2005; 173: 89-92
        • Silverstein AD
        • Henry GD
        • Evans B
        • Pasmore M
        • Simmons CJ
        • Donatucci CF.
        Biofilm Formation on Clinically Noninfected Penile Prostheses.
        J Urol. 2006; 176: 1008-1011
        • Kavoussi M
        • Cook GS
        • Nordeck SM
        • et al.
        Distance From Critical Pelvic Structures: Radiographic Comparison of High Submuscular and Space of Retzius IPP Reservoir Placement Techniques.
        Urology. 2022; 160: 136-141
        • Rajpurkar A
        • Bianco FF
        • Al-Omar O
        • Terlecki R
        • Dhabuwala C.
        Fate of the retained reservoir after replacement of 3-piece penile prosthesis.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 664-666
        • Köhler TS
        • Benson A
        • Ost L
        • Wilson SK
        • Brant WO.
        Intentionally Retained Pressure-Regulating Balloon in Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision.
        J Sex Med. 2013; 10: 2566-2570
        • Cefalu CA
        • Deng X
        • Zhao LC
        • Scott JF
        • Mehta S
        • Morey AF.
        Safety of the “drain and retain” option for defunctionalized urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs during artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: 5-year experience.
        Urology. 2013; 82: 1436-1439
        • Hsi RS
        • Hotaling JM
        • Spencer ES
        • Bollyky PL
        • Walsh TJ.
        Isolated infection of a decommissioned penile prosthesis reservoir with actinomyces neuii.
        J Sex Med. 2011; 8: 923-926